Leadership On Demand: Followers as initiators and

+ Models

SCAMAN-863; No. of Pages 14

Leadership On Demand: Followers asinitiators and inhibitors of managerialleadership

Martin Blom *, Mats Alvesson 1

School of Economics and Management, Lund University, Box 7080, 220 07 Lund, Sweden

Scandinavian Journal of Management (2013) xxx, xxx—xxx

KEYWORDSLeadership;Followership;Social construction;Qualitative research

Summary A key aspect of leadership is the followers’ constructions of its value and relevance.Based on two empirical, qualitative case studies, this paper highlights the importance of the‘demand’ for leadership when leader—follower relationships are established. We further discusshow followers influence, inhibit and initiate managerial leadership (i.e. leadership acts from theirformal superior targeting themselves), and suggest ‘Leadership On Demand’ as a useful metaphorwhen trying to conceptualize the leader—follower dynamics in our study.# 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

j ou rn al home pag e: http: / /w ww. e l se v ier. com/ loc ate /sc ama n

Introduction

Leadership is often described in terms of influencing mean-ings, norms, feelings, thinking and values, mainly throughinterpersonal, non-coercive means (Kotter, 1985; Ladkin,2010; Smircich & Morgan, 1982; Zaleznik, 1977). Influencingthoughts and meanings involves a voluntary side; followersneed to be persuaded, not just enforced by formal authorityof management. You can order people to do a particular taskor to comply with standards, but not to alter their moods orbuy into a certain value or definition of reality. In organiza-tional settings, this makes the members’ demand for man-agerial leadership crucial. With managerial leadershipwe refer to leadership (in the way previously described)

Please cite this article in press as: Blom, M., & Alvesson, M. Leadershileadership. Scandinavian Journal of Management (2013), http://dx.do

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 46 222 96 21;fax: +46 14 622 24 23.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Blom),[email protected] (M. Alvesson).1 Tel.: +46 46 222 42 44; fax: +46 14 622 24 23.

0956-5221/$ — see front matter # 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reservehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2013.10.006

exercised by people holding a managerial (appointed orelected, but formally superior) position, targeting formalsubordinates (Yukl, 1989). It is here important to bear inmind that many aspects of everyday managerial work there-fore fall outside the scope of ‘leadership’ as described above.Demand indicates the interest in ‘receiving’ managerialleadership, i.e. taking a clear (but possibly temporal, con-ditional or situation-specific) followership position in relationto a formally superior manager and viewing him/her as aleader, i.e. a significant source for meaning-making, support,and/or direction.

Understanding the subordinates’ demand for leadership isa challenge facing many organizations and managers. Theimportant and fairly recent turn in leadership research withan increased interest in and focus on followers as importantco-constructors of leadership processes (e.g. Carsten, Uhl-Bien, West, Patera, & McGregor, 2010; Collinson, 2005, 2006;DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Hollander, 1992; Kelley, 2008; Riggio,Chaleff, & Lipman-Blumen, 2008; Shamir, Pillai, Bligh, & Uhl-Bien, 2007), opens up new possibilities to explore this issue.In this paper, we build on this body of literature that deals

p On Demand: Followers as initiators and inhibitors of manageriali.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2013.10.006

d.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2013.10.006


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09565221


+ Models


2 M. Blom, M. Alvesson

with the views and roles of ‘non-leaders’, and their agencywhen it comes to how acts of leadership are framed, conductedand evaluated. Despite the growing interest in followers andfollowership during the last years, ‘the vast majority ofresearch continues to focus on leaders and leadership’ (Bligh,2011, p. 426) and as Carsten et al. (2010) writes: ‘we still knowvery little about how followers enact their own roles as part ofthe leadership equation’ (p. 544). Hence, there are manyaspects of followership that remain to be addressed (Kelley,2008). One such followership-related research question thatremains ‘relatively unexplored’ (Bligh, 2011, p. 432) is howleaders and, perhaps especially, followers play an active role in‘managing’ dynamic leader—follower processes (see alsoBaker, 2007, p. 56). We claim that one important aspect ofthis complex question is related to the understanding of fol-lowers’ demand for leadership, since it most likely affects howleadership initiatives will be PERCEIVED and received by thetargets, i.e. the followers. A ‘demand’ perspective gives here anew angle, contributing to (a) a downplaying of a leader-focusand (b) to a more open view of the experienced need formanagerial leadership as a helpful organizational practice.

The aim of this paper is to contribute to the question ofhow subordinates, as potential followers, ‘manage’ dynamicleader—follower processes, and especially how they can beinvolved in the very initiation of managerial leadership pro-cesses.

In this study, we therefore investigate and pay carefulattention to followers’ views on leadership, what leadership(if any) they expect from their superiors, when leadership iscalled for, how it is influenced and initiated. We also inves-tigate how their superiors understand and relate to theirsubordinates’ demand for leadership. It is important to notethat we are studying the perceived or experienced need forand interest in managerial leadership, and not managerialleadership processes per se, or how they are enacted andnegotiated in specific instances (e.g. real time conversa-tions). It is rather the overall constructions and the nego-tiated nature of the relationship (potentially in terms ofleaders and followers) that we are interested in. Approachingleadership—followership as a complex and socially con-structed phenomenon (Bligh, 2011; Fairhurst & Grant,2010), we ask not only how followers contribute to theconstruction of leadership, but we are also open to thewhether they are interested in constructing their relationsin terms of leadership—followership at all?

We do not want to pigeonhole the study too narrowly(Sandberg & Alvesson, 2011), but position it in the context offollower-centred approaches to leadership and leadershiptheories that privilege the role of followers from a construc-tionist perspective (e.g. Carsten et al., 2010; DeRue &Ashford, 2010; Meindl, 1995). We further locate the studywithin a ‘moderate’ (rather than radical) constructioniststance (Barlebo Wenneberg, 2001). The paper contributesby empirically investigating the followers’ demand for (inter-est in and receptivity to) acts of managerial leadership, incontrast to the numerous studies of the construction (themeanings) of leadership per se, or how different followertraits, attitudes, and emotions influence their perceptions ofcertain types of leaders (see Bligh & Schyns, 2007 for anoverview). We see our contribution as of broad relevance tothe understanding of how subordinates, as potential fol-lowers, influence managerial leadership.

Please cite this article in press as: Blom, M., & Alvesson, M. Leadershleadership. Scandinavian Journal of Management (2013), http://dx.do

This introduction section of the paper will now be fol-lowed by an overview of literature that deals with followers’potential need for and active part in managerial leadershipprocesses. The review of the literature is structured in threerelated subsections: (a) the dynamic construction of leadersand followers, (b) followers in less need of managerial lea-dership, and (c) (pro)active followers as co-producers ofleadership. After this literature review, we present twoempirical case studies. The findings from these studies arethen compared and discussed.

Followers’ ‘need’ for and active part inmanagerial leadership

The dynamic construction of leaders andfollowers

The discursive and fluid construction of leadership andfollowership (the latter more or less explicitly) has beenexplored and emphasized in various ways by scholars such asBresnen (1995), Carsten et al. (2010), Collinson (2005),Cunliffe (2001), Fairhurst (2007), Gemmill and Oakley(1992), Grint (2000, 2005), Kelly (2008), Ospina and Soren-son (2006) and Vine, Holmes, Marra, Pfeifer, and Jackson(2008). The meanings and reasoning of followers are crucialfor when leadership relations are established, emphasizedrespectively de-emphasized and marginalized (DeRue &Ashford, 2010; Hollander, 1992; Howell & Shamir, 2005;Shamir, 2007). We agree with Fairhurst and Grant (2010)when they write: ‘. . .leadership [as well as followership] isco-constructed, a product of sociohistorical and collectivemeaning making, and negotiated on an ongoing basis througha complex interplay among leadership actors, be they desig-nated or emergent leaders, managers, and/or followers’(p. 172).

Leadership/followership-relations are therefore not justsimply prescribed or determined by formal hierarchical posi-tions, but are dynamically claimed/granted (DeRue & Ash-ford, 2010). Subordinates are not always followers, just asmanagers are not always leaders (Bedeian & Hunt, 2006).Leadership and followership should rather be seen as ‘reci-procal and mutually reinforcing identities. . . endorsed andreinforced within a broader organizational context, and isdynamic over time’ (DeRue & Ashford, 2010, p. 627). Howpeople in formally subordinate positions construct their worksituation and organizational context is therefore vital, beinga key part in the formation of a possible demand for manage-rial leadership. This demand for (and potentially positivereception to) leadership interventions is not given, but fol-lows from the subordinates’ views of themselves, the situa-tion and the relationship with their superior (DeRue &Ashford, 2010). Powerful managers can persuade subordi-nates that they ‘need’ (experience that they strongly benefitfrom) leadership (Gray & Densten, 2007), i.e. that thevisions, value propositions, cognitive framings, moral andpsychological support, advice and instructions offered by themanager/leader is highly valuable. But still, when it comes toleadership, subordinates need to accept these suggestionsand understand themselves as followers: ‘[I]f a person claimsleadership in a setting but others do not reinforce thatclaim with supportive grants. . . [It is] insufficient for a

ip On Demand: Followers as initiators and inhibitors of manageriali.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2013.10.006


+ Models


Leadership On Demand: Followers as initiators and inhibitors of managerial leadership 3

leader—follower relationship to emerge’ (DeRue & Ashford,2010, p. 632).

Followers in less need of managerial leadership

The growing literature on followers and followership dealswith the myriad of varieties of leader—follower relationshipsand how followers (at least partly) are influencing the leader-ship processes (DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Hollander, 1992;Kellerman, 2008; Meindl, 1995; Riggio et al., 2008; Tengblad,2003). We see here a trend to upgrade followers and todownplay strongly asymmetrical and rigid leader—followerdivisions (Carsten et al., 2010; Shamir, 2007; Shamir et al.,2007). In this body of literature, we sometimes find ‘fol-lowers’ who are able to do rather well without much tangibleleadership interaction (e.g. Kelley, 2008; Lovelace, Manz, &Alves, 2007), even if it usually seems to be viewed as anexception from the norm. The notion that especially qualifiedand highly skilled people (experience that they) need lessmanagerial leadership is common in studies on knowledge-intense firms and organizations (e.g. Alvesson, 2004; Pearce& Manz, 2005; Reiter-Palmon & Illies, 2004; Ropo and Par-viainen, 2001; Trevelyan, 2001; Von Nordenflycht, 2010).There are, however, those that emphasize that qualifiedand committed employees, such as the ones often found inknowledge-intensive and/or creative organizations, stillneed leadership, but of a different kind. Mumford, Scott,Gaddis, and Strange (2002), for example, claim that leader-ship is vital for all aspects of creative work from idea gen-eration to coordination, structuring, production mission,social support, people involvement, output expectation,rewarding, team building, networking, and so forth. Herethe manager doing leadership is assumed to be absolutelycentral, rather than one source out of many for attainingdirection and/or support.

The debate on whether competent and committed sub-ordinates can do without (much) managerial leadership ornot, can furthermore be linked to the literature on substi-tutes for leadership (Jermier & Kerr, 1997; Kerr & Jermier,1978). According to this body of literature, contextual vari-ables such as subordinate characteristics, organizationalcharacteristics, and task characteristics can substitute for,neutralize, or enhance the effects of leadership (Dionne,Yammarino, Howell, & Villa, 2005; Kerr & Jermier, 1978;Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996). This will in turndecide the need/opportunity for managerial leadershipinterventions. The idea of subordinates in need of no orminimal managerial leadership can also be found in theliterature on situational leadership (Blanchard, 2008; Hersey& Blanchard, 1977), where the subordinates’ ‘developmentlevels’ are seen as pivotal for whether a ‘delegating’ leader-ship style (low directive and low supportive leadership inter-ventions) is assumed to be most effective (Blanchard, 2008).Notably, it is the manager’s task to evaluate his/her sub-ordinates’ development levels and adjust his/her leadershipstyle accordingly.

A similar idea to delegation is the notion of ‘management-by-exception’ (Bass & Riggio, 2006), where management-by-exception leadership is divided into two types: passive andactive. When leaders employ a passive management-by-exception approach, they wait for signals of performancedeviations, breaking of rules/procedures, complaints,


etcetera, before taking action. Active management-by-exception implies leaders that proactively monitor and watchfor deviances from acceptable performance and then inter-vene. Again, in both cases, it is the manager’s/leader’s privi-lege to define the situation/identify problems and decide whatleadership interventions that are ‘necessary’. The leaderstands for the decisive construction of the situation and it isassumed that subordinates buy into this, i.e. they are hardly(actively) involved in the construction processes.

(Pro)active followers as co-producers ofleadership

This view (active leader, passive follower) has however beenchallenged in several studies that remind us of the impor-tance of seeing followers as active co-producers of leadership(Carsten et al., 2010; Kelley, 1992; Shamir, 2007). Collinson(2005, p. 1422) for example, suggests that we should ‘re-think followers as knowledgeable agents . . . as proactive,self-aware and knowing subjects’ and look at the dialectics,including resistance in the leader—follower relationship.

The notion of the active follower is sometimes associatedwith ‘shared leadership’ (Pearce & Conger, 2003) or ‘distrib-uted leadership’ (Gronn, 2002; Lindgren & Packendorff,2011; Thorpe, Gold, & Lawler, 2011). Howell and Shamir(2005) emphasize followers’ active role in forming charis-matic leadership processes (see also Shamir, 2007), andHollander’s (1992) early notion of follower agency/involve-ment still seems relevant:

‘Given their need for mutual responsiveness, leadershipand followership can be considered to be reciprocal sys-tems requiring synchronization. Leadership is usually seenas the more active system, but followership can be pro-active, not only reactive. . . Empowerment in some sectorsof activity would be another instance of giving follower-ship a more proactive role, as an accompaniment toleadership in the traditional directive mode.’ (Hollander,1992, p. 46)

In a more recent study, Carsten et al. (2010) comes to theconclusion that followers display a great variety in terms ofactivity/agency, and construct themselves as passive, activeor proactive (see also Kelley, 1992). Followers constructed aspassive emphasized taking orders, loyalty with the leader anda submission in relation to the leader’s knowledge andauthority. Active followers described themselves as ‘offeringopinions when given the opportunity, but remaining obedientand loyal’ regardless if they were in agreement with theleader (Carsten et al., 2010, p. 556). In contrast, proactivefollowers ‘saw themselves as active participants. . . workingto advance the mission of their department or organization. . .willing to constructively challenge their managers if needed’(Carsten et al., 2010, p. 556).

Our paper broadly supports and contributes to this view ofproactive subordinate/follower influence on managerial lea-dership, but goes further than just assuming that follower-ship also can be proactive in terms of challenging the views ofthe manager/leader (as implied by the quote above). Fol-lowers are here regarded as absolutely central in the con-struction of whether managerial leadership is put into beingat all by reactively or proactively granting their manager a



+ Models



leader identity (DeRue & Ashford, 2010; DeRue, Ashford, &Cotton, 2009), thereby more or less proactively acceptingfollower identities for themselves.

Method

Research design

Constructionist studies on leadership display great variety interms of ambition and methods in use (Cunliffe, 2008; Fair-hurst & Grant, 2010). In this paper, we draw upon a case studymethodology (Stake, 2000) and ideas on empirical materialalways being interpretations of the phenomena targeted(Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2009; Steier, 1991). In line with ourconstructionist ontological view and our interpretive analy-tical approach (described more in detail below), we do notclaim to produce generalizable results or data mirroring anobjective reality in the specific instances investigated.Instead, an interpretive approach typically focuses on thelevel of ‘meaning’ (Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2009), which wefind useful, relevant and compatible with our interest inpeoples’ (co)constructions of the need for managerial lea-dership (some authors even refer to and advocate ‘herme-neutic constructivism’ (Marcel, 2001, p. 2)).

A problem with much leadership research is that it is basedon just one source, e.g. managers giving responses aboutthemselves or subordinates asked to assess their managersor when both are studied, e.g. by many LMX researchers, thedata is often questionnaire-based and quite thin. Interestinglyenough, such studies show a fairly low degree of correspon-dence between managers and subordinates assessment of thesituation (Cogliser, Schriesheim, Scandura, & Gardner, 2009),indicating that it may be very difficult to draw conclusions onleadership based on studies of only one part of the relation-ship. In contrast, we present two empirical qualitative casestudies, where we investigated how people viewed theirrelations as superior—subordinates in terms of the need forand interest in managerial leadership — doing and receiving it,with a special focus on organizational contexts where lessdirective managerial leadership could be expected, in our casetwo R&D departments within the wireless communicationindustry. Studying leadership in knowledge-intensive organi-zations with supposedly creative, highly skilled workersallowed us to further explore the common notion that thistype of organization demands particular (usually less direc-tive), non-traditional forms of managerial leadership.

The rationale for using two qualitative case studies is thatit allows a combination of depth, richness and variation. Ourinterest in peoples’ reasoning and constructions of the needfor managerial leadership (doing and receiving) calls forstudies of both managers and subordinates, which is fairlydemanding in terms of access and understanding of what isgoing on, where creating a sense of trust in order to encou-rage people to talk openly about their relations and refrain-ing from following available social scripts and standards forleadership talk, possibly echoing available discourses (morethan one’s own experiences and observations) is key (Alves-son, 2011a). This ambition is often easier to fulfil with fewercases, or even a single case study. With our two cases, we arealso reducing the risk of over relying on the idiosyncrasies of aspecific unit/manager and his/her relations. The two cases


further enable us to do interesting comparisons, both interms of reasoning from subordinate versus superior positionswithin each organization, as well as between the two cases.

Given our interest in meanings on the need for managerialleadership, we primarily based our case studies on open-ended interviews. These interviews where complementedwith some observations of meetings/interactions where man-agerial leadership could be expected to be exercised. We donot directly refer to our observations in this text (withexception from one quote based on ‘natural occurring talk’between a manager and two of his subordinates in Case 2),since these broadly confirmed the impressions from theinterviews. Often observations display rather little of clearexamples of leadership: people in interactions discuss tech-nical issues and it is seldom clear who, if any, is the ‘leader’(e.g. Lundholm, 2011; Rennstam, 2007). This was also thecase in our two studies.

Selection of cases and interviewees

The two cases — ‘EHT’ and ‘Allied Tech’ (both pseudonyms) —included in the empirical study were selected based ongeographical closeness (allowing flexibility in setting upagreements for interviews and observation) and the fact thata large proportion of their employees were highly educatedengineers (i.e. examples of ‘knowledge intensive’ organiza-tional settings) and engaged in innovation work. The firmsoffered good access without any constraints.

The first study was conducted over approximately sixmonths at an R&D unit at EHT, a global consumer electronicscompany. The field study was based on open-ended inter-views with seven managers at three different hierarchicallevels. In total, this study included nine interviews (for moredetails on the interviews, see Appendices A and B). Also thesecond study consisted of a case study of an R&D unit within aglobal high-tech company called Allied Tech. The study ofAllied Tech comprises thirteen interviews over the course of acouple of months (for more details on the interviews, seeAppendices A and B). Common for both studies is that weconducted the first interviews with the head of each unit andthen moved downwards in the organizational hierarchy (pur-posive sample) until we thought we had data enough to makeinteresting interpretations (see Appendix A). The first studyreceives more space below as the inclusion of three levelsmeant that a richer empirical material could be produced, asall involved (junior, middle and senior) levels could offeraccounts of both superior and subordinate relations. As onthe whole experienced and qualified persons, they alsoexpressed many insightful experiences. In the second case,all except the head of the unit were ‘first-level’ (non-man-agerial) professionals and much younger and less experiencedthan the subjects in the first case. All in all, even with a fewernumber of interviews, the first study contained more usefulaccounts given our research interest. Therefore Case 1 issomewhat more extensive than Case 2 below.

Based on our research question, our two a priori themes —‘supply’ and ‘demand’ of managerial leadership — are sali-ently reflected in the design of the interview scheme (seeAppendix B). The overall framing of the interviews wasexplicitly, but rather openly, related to ‘leadership’ (i.e.the reason for the interviews was presented as a ‘study onleadership in knowledge-intense organizations, such as



+ Models



yours’), but we deliberately kept the definition of ‘leader-ship’ open for interpretations (i.e. we did not impose ourview of managerial leadership — as discussed in the intro-duction section — on them), and it was up to the intervieweesto fill the label with meaning and specific examples. It alsoallowed people to go outside this theme (or use of vocabu-lary). The result was a variety of examples of what they sawas managerial leadership activities, more or less in demand.

Analytical approach

Analytically, as a first step, we tried to evaluate which parts ofthe recorded interview (or raw field notes if not recorded) thatseemed relevant given our research question. Parts that weredeemed ‘irrelevant’ at this stage were not transcribed. Tran-scribed texts were then targeted for close readings and wecategorized the accounts in terms of our two broad a priorithemes (constructions of supply and demand of leadership). Inaddition to this, we created new empirically driven sub-themes related to ‘leadership’, most of them explicitlyreferred to by the interviewees (but also of course partlycoloured by our own interpretative repertoire and pre-under-standing of the phenomenon). Examples of such themesincluded ‘non-interference’, ‘protection’, ‘acting upwards’,‘inhibiting leadership’, and ‘initiating leadership’. We aggre-gated what we regarded as related topics into broader themes,or broke up what we thought being to broad themes into morefine-tuned ones. We did not engage in detailed codifications,often giving a misleading impression of precision and hiding theambiguities and context-depending nature of material thatare domesticated by the codification (Potter & Wetherell,1987). Instead we were eager to get a good feeling for contextand relations. We looked for patterns as well as deviations andwere surprised by the fairly high level of common views onleadership issues expressed. The few but important variationsidentified in the accounts were taken seriously and furtherexplored as potential themes (e.g. ‘(mis)alignment of expec-tations’), rather than methodological problems or inconsis-tencies. After this procedure, we then shared and comparedour themes (including meanings, significance, underlyingassumptions, context, etc.), in order to generate, contrastand evaluate different lines of interpretation. Finally, wecompared the two case studies for similarities and differences.

The purpose with this interpretative analytical process,inspired by e.g. Gadamer (1989), Gubrium and Holstein (1997)and Marcel (2001), was to get a deeper sense of the meaning ofthe phenomenon, in our case how people relate to ‘managerialleadership’ and construct their need for it. In the process onetries to get close to those studied and their ways of makingsense of and develop meanings around selfhood and relations,but also to critically bear in mind that expressed understand-ings may reflect limited overview, want to give a good impres-sion, a self-understanding exaggerating agency and autonomyand downplay or deny dependencies and conformism.

Case 1: EHT

Introducing the case

EHT is a large, global consumer electronics company. Thepart of the company included in this study is a software R&D


unit called Platform Technology Planning, consisting of 80highly skilled engineers functionally organized in ‘sections’based on specific technology areas. We have been able tostudy two of these sections (Sections A and B) and theirmanagers. The head of Platform Technology Planning isJulian, a 45 year old engineer. The main task for his organiza-tion is to conduct novel research within each technologyarea, but also to support the product development projectswith expertise and solutions at later stages in the develop-ment cycle. Key challenges for Julian include raising thenumber of (for EHT) useful patents and keeping service levelshigh in relation to the internal product development pro-jects.

Limited demand for managerial leadership

A key theme dominating many of the interviews about therelationship between the interviewees and their managers is‘non-interference’. One middle manager thinks that heencounters leadership (from his manager, Julian) mainly ifsomething extraordinary happens. Because he knows his job,he does not expect nor want much leadership, apart from inexceptional cases.

I would put it like this: when I end up in a situation whereleadership is invoked upon me it is an extraordinary thing,if you see what I mean. I have rather extensive degrees offreedom when it comes to the daily operative activities,perhaps thanks to my background within the organization.Julian knows that I am on top of things. . .

(Magnus S)

The construction above, implied to be shared (‘Julianknows. . .’), is that under ordinary conditions, with compe-tent people, work is ‘leadership-free’. Managerial leadershipis, unless under very rare conditions, unwelcome, and isconstructed as something that is motivated for subordinatesthat are not ‘on top of things’ and stands in opposition totrust and competence. Actually, managers eager to practiceleadership are sometimes experienced as frustrating.

The managers I struggle with most are the ‘motivating’types, who try to create energy and momentum, but onlymove back and forth without keeping a clear direction.

(Magnus S)

The point here is that people taking leadership too ser-iously, perhaps inspired by all the literature on ‘transforma-tional leadership’, are creating problems rather thanimproving people and the business. People eager to doleadership are constructed as overambitious; the idea ofbeing able to motivate others through specific communica-tion does not work. One can note that the manager refers toseveral examples and a pattern, not just one deviant case.One junior manager is even more salient in deviating from theview that much leadership is needed or is, on the whole, agood thing.

My work has seldom received much leadership. Somethingwhich I appreciate (laughter)! I have had pretty muchcarte blanche from the beginning. Sometimes this can be



+ Models



tricky, but mostly I find it stimulating. I am directed bygoals and dislike being told what to do. So who or should Isay what is leading me? The projects’ milestones and theprojects’ resource capacity lead my work. This is what Iand my group primarily have to adapt our work to.

(Steven A)

In addition to time schedules and resource plans, peers/fellow experts within and outside the company are men-tioned as ‘the most significant’ sources of influence accordingto one of Steven’s colleagues in Section A.

I think that the ones that exercise the most significantinfluence on my work are as a matter of fact the otherexperts in the global virtual community. And in addition tothem, we have the agreed plans, schedules and deliver-ables that provide boundaries for what I can do.

(Andrew M)

Of course, we cannot generalize from this, but we canunderstand that in some situations, getting advice in hor-izontal relations with respected and competent colleagues,are seen as beneficial compared to reliance on a ‘fixed’hierarchical leader—follower relation as the source and con-text of direction and support. Managers are often stressedand short of time (Holmberg & Tyrstrup, 2010) adding to thesituation, and sometimes encourages subordinates to findother solutions than managerial leadership, both as animmediate response and as a long-term orientation, therebyfuelling a low demand for managerial leadership. But ratherthan viewing these substitutes as simply being there and thenfunctioning as compensating for or reducing the role ofleadership (Kerr & Jermier, 1978), one could say that aninitial or gradual downplaying of leadership as a social con-struction may bring these qualities (intrinsic motivation,etc.) into being. Constructing peers — more than leaders —as central for direction and support from the followers’ pointof view is key in this regard.

Managerial leadership initiated by the followers

So the basic rule in the Platform Technology Planning unitseems to be non-interference from superiors, indicating ageneral low demand for managerial leadership. When man-agerial leadership on rare occasions is called for, it seems tobe common that the subordinates — not the manager —initiate or trigger the managerial intervention/support.

Magnus [Andrew’s immediate superior] is a sound personthat you really can talk to. You can always pop into hisoffice when you have a problem. His door is always open soto speak. . . But when it comes to everyday work, we hardydo not interact. . . I would say that he has more of asupporting role, where we contact him if we need hisideas, opinion or assistance.

(Andrew S)

The manager is here constructed as mainly ‘reactive’ andmore or less ‘on call’, ready to assist, but only when asked forby his subordinates. ‘We’ implies that it is not just this


particular relationship (Magnus—Andrew) that is referredto. This construction seems also to be shared by the managerin question, even if he indicates some doubts regarding hissufficiency as a leader in the eyes of his people.

I am sometimes asked for advice and ideas. . . Perhaps Ishould try to be more engaging and create more energy inmy group. If think I ought to but find it hard, partlybecause of the person I am. I am no party animal anddo not like to stand up in public and sing. I am more offishand thoughtful. I think this affects how I lead, and canlead.

(Magnus S)

This pattern, with a mainly reactive manager/leader, canalso be found in Section A, where Andrew describes therelationship with his manager Staffan and his other collea-gues.

Patrick is also an experienced colleague that is usefulwhen you need an advice. Therefore, I ask Patrick for helpwhen it comes to concrete and tangible issues. On theother hand, when it comes to for example importantresource conflicts, I will go to Staffan [his manager].

(Andrew M)

Again, the phrase ‘I will go to. . .’, indicates that it isAndrew who takes the initiative when it comes to trigger‘leadership’ from his managers part. Andrew’s manager,Staffan L, confirms the view that he is not very active as amanager (acting downwards) and that his subordinatesusually neither need, nor want interference from their boss.Below, he constructs himself as mainly reactive, respondingto the initiatives from others.

Well, mostly it is them [the subordinates] that contact mewhen they need help with some issue. . . They need aleader that is sufficiently technically skilled in order tobe able to give them support, but generally I do not thinkthey need or want any interference from the boss. I havereceived a lot of feedback that confirm this.

(Staffan L)

The consensus about the relationship across hierarchies isstriking. Usually, it is the subordinates who initiate theleadership interventions from their managers, when theysee a need for it.

Managerial leadership inhibited by the followers

But the subordinates do not just initiate managerial leader-ship interventions. They are also more or less proactivelyinfluencing or even inhibiting managerial leadership acts.One example is how they divert what they refer to as ‘leader-ship’ from themselves, upwards the hierarchy or outsidetheir own organization unit. The rationale for this is saidto be top management’s tendency of complicating work,something that should be inhibited or at least moderated.



+ Models



Management, and now I am talking about the levels aboveJulian [Head of department], have a tendency of tofrequently and easily making decisions without involvingus first. Decisions that often alter the conditions and ‘rulesof the game’ for our activity, and often lead to conse-quences they do not see nor understand. In addition,issues that they do not want to handle have a tendencyof quickly be thrown upon the TWGs [Andrew’s ownorganization].

(Andrew S)

Top management is here constructed as sometimes ignor-ant and creating problems. Defence and protection areneeded against all the disturbances and unrealistic demands,also emphasized by Steven below.

We need someone who defends our freedom. Someonewho can protect us from all these small, fragmenting,time-consuming issues. Someone who protects us from theproduct development projects. It should be we, not they[the product development projects], who dictates whatneeds to be done when it comes to R&D-work.

(Steven A)

The most senior manager in the unit, two steps up inrelationship to Steven and Andrew, seems on the whole to beaware of and sympathetic to his junior managers’ views onthe subject matter of ‘leadership’.

My role as a leader is primarily to ensure peace and quietfor my people in order to enable them to do their job. . ..What I can do is to manage their [the subordinates’]problem escalation in an effective way; is it a localproblem that should be allocated to a certain individualor group within my organization? Or is it a bigger problemthat we either must solve collectively or escalate upwardsin the hierarchy? My developers may be brilliant at whatthey are doing, but they seldom escalate or manage theirissues and problems in a politically correct way. That isprobably one of my most important tasks as a leader; tounderstand the political system and translate the issues,messages and interests of the organization in a politicallysmart, or should I say passable, way, in order to haveeffect higher up in the hierarchy. Here I can contribute.

(Julian A)

Again, there is not much about directly leading subordi-nates. Julian mentions that an important role is to ‘ensurepeace and quit’ and to help them resolve issues, oftenupwards in the hierarchy and emphasizes these as tasks forhim as a ‘leader.’ He talks about ‘my role as leader’ and notesthat ‘one of my most significant tasks as a leader is tounderstand the political system’ and ‘to have effect higherup in the hierarchy’. The subordinates’ demand for ‘leader-ship’ is here again constructed as being about protectingthem from disturbing and distracting events, promoting theirinterests outside the unit, keeping hands off and just lettingthem keep on doing what they are doing. This indicates that


the subordinates’/followers’ efforts of redirecting manage-ment attention (and thereby managerial leadership inter-ventions targeted at themselves) outside the unit, have hadsome effect. According to these fairly shared constructions,‘leaders’ are supposed to affect meanings and exerciseinfluence over their superiors, not their subordinates!

Whether this form of upward influence should be labelled‘leadership’ (as done by our respondents) is of course deba-table. As Carroll and Levy (2008) writes, ‘leader’ has often nospecific meaning different from ‘middle manager’, illustrat-ing that people often are uncertain about the leader—man-ager distinction and use the term leadership in vague andvaried ways. Kelly (2008) uses the concept of ‘languagegames’ when theorizing on the various applications of thelabel. As mentioned in the methods section, we have beenopen for the interviewees’ own constructions of ‘leadership’,and can just note that it deviates from our, rather conven-tional definition of managerial leadership as described in theintroduction section. But regardless of the usefulness oflabelling this upward influencing activity leadership or not,it (more or less deliberately) diverts managerial attentionfrom the subordinates towards other actors, thereby inhibit-ing managerial leadership acts targeting the subordinatesand turning them into ‘followers’.

Summary

The key themes/categories that emerge from this analysis(indicated by the chosen sub-headlines above) are (a) agenerally low demand for managerial leadership, (b) man-agerial leadership often initiated by the subordinates/fol-lowers, and (c) managerial leadership inhibited/diverted bythe followers. The subordinates do not expect or favour muchleadership directed to themselves, occasionally there is aconflict about resources or there is a need for discussion oradvice, and here a senior person exercising leadership isviewed as helpful, but being lead in a distinct, directivesense by a senior is not prominent. The superiors confirm thispicture of the demand of their subordinates and on the wholethink it is appropriate and act accordingly. The desired role ofmanagers is mainly to work and exercise influence upwards inthe hierarchy. Some respondents define this as ‘leadership’,but it does not seem to be about leading followers. Whenmanagerial leadership is exercised towards the subordi-nates/followers, it is often initiated and framed by them,rather than their manager.

Case 2: Allied Tech

Introducing the case

Allied Tech offers advanced network-based products andsolutions for corporate customers worldwide. George, ourfocal manager at Allied Tech, is in his 30s and the newlyappointed head of the Product Platforms Group. One ofGeorge’s first tasks was to try to (re)define the objectives,role and responsibilities of the unit. George is heading agroup of eight development engineers doing advanced pro-gramming of micro processers that are key components of thetechnologically advanced products developed, manufac-tured and sold by Allied Tech.



+ Models




George is eager to work as a manager, doing leadership. Hehas an engineering background, but has just been promotedand strongly identifies himself as a manager exercising man-agerial leadership. This means working with the group and itsinternal relations, clarifying responsibilities, increasing jobsatisfaction, facilitating collaboration and development,etc. He emphasizes that he, as a leader, is non-directiveand highly dialogue-oriented:

I base my leadership on respect for those who really areclose to the actual work and I do not have any tendency oftelling people what to do. Instead, I base my leadership ontrust, respect and a very open dialogue with all my sub-ordinates. No hidden agenda from my part, so to speak.

George clearly expects that being open, honest and con-siderate — an ‘authentic leader’ (as some authors like to putit, e.g. Bass and Steidlmeier, 1999) — will shine through inhow others view him as a leader.

I’m quite sure that they think that I am open and that I amvery inviting. . . I tell them about my private situation and Isay what I can and cannot do, and so on. And I hope theyhave caught that... But then, I think, my group has nopotential project leaders, so to speak. They are reallydeep technologically, and want to be deep technological-ly. And, it’s not to be prejudiced, but it is a fact that thiscategory [of people] does not reflect so much over theirmanager. . .

This quote indicates a limited interest on the behalf of thesubordinates (hardly constructing themselves as followers).George is worried that they may have not even noted orbothered about his leadership efforts (‘I hope they havecaught that’). His view is that the engineers are unreflectiveabout and unresponsive to leadership from his part andpossibly about other ‘non-technological’ related issues aswell. At least the disinterest in managerial leadership isconfirmed by the subordinates. When asked about George’sleadership specifically, one of them says about their relation-ship to their manager:

Hmm. . . what do we do really? We go to his meetings andanswer his questions, and beyond that. . .

The rest of the sentence is left unsaid and indicates thatnot much come out of this. The engineer confirms George’sunderstanding, although he would probably not construct thisas a matter of ‘limited reflection’. Later, when asked aboutwhat functions George has for the group, another subordi-nate explains:

Well, what functions does he really fill, apart from beingan administrator? Well. . . if we are now expected to workin a different way he has something to do with definingthat I guess. And he has involved himself into that,enthusiastically. A bit too much, because I mean, we havebeen able to work well before and suddenly it has to bedefined and structured, it feels a bit overambitious, to saythe least.

While acting as an administrator is fine, affecting work isnot. Arranging meetings is not viewed with much enthusiasm,


either. It is quite clear that interference is not welcome. Agood manager, it seems, refrains from (over)ambitious lea-dership, but also other interventions. Another subordinatereinforces the impression when arguing that:

. . . trusting the people in the group to do what they shouldand not intervene and decide everything. I feel that it isquite important. Especially when you have worked herefor some time. You want to be trusted. You want to feelthat the manager trusts that I can handle this.

The view seems to be that doing managerial leadership isalmost like displaying distrust and exercise unmotivatedinterference. The need for personal development, feelingsof commitment and joy are attributed to the work content —the very thing the subordinates want George to stay awayfrom. Also, this programmer (above) wants to decide forhimself, i.e. exercise professional autonomy. A third subor-dinate summarizes his view in a rather lukewarm comment:

So far there haven’t been any problems [with George].

All in all, it is rather clear that managerial leadershiptargeting the subordinates seem not be in high demand in thisorganizational unit, according to the interviewees.

Managerial leadership influenced or inhibited bythe followers

When asked about what leadership the subordinates needfrom their manager, after a few seconds of thinking, oneengineer emphasizes the ‘social’ dimension:

It should be someone who makes. . . parties and such.

Managerial ‘entertainment’, rather than influence, direc-tion and support related to work, seems to be in demand. Thisfollower driven direction of managerial focus seems also tohave had some effect on how George view his role as a leader:

I walk around the corridor five to nine and tell people‘breakfast is served’. I think it is appreciated.

In addition to breakfasts, George later also introduced‘beer tasting’ just before Christmas, something that alsoseemed ‘very appreciated’ by his subordinates.

Another example of how George’s ‘followers’ significantlyinfluence his ability to do leadership concerns the everydaywork content. George describes one of his developers:

One of my long-timers is rather challenging. . . It is not aconflict or so, but he does question me at meetings and soon. . .I know that other managers are scared of thisexpert. . . He has significant degrees of freedom, bothwhen it comes to his presence here at the office and whathe is supposed to work with, so to speak.

How the subordinates more or less are able to self definewhat to do, is further illustrated by a conversation betweenGeorge and two of his developers. George:

Think also a little bit about what we shall do in the future.What are you interested in and what do you want to diginto? I would really like to learn more about what youwould like to work with, what each of you would like to dohere.



+ Models



Related to this, George admits that it is hard to exerciseleadership targeting his subordinates and their everydaywork because of his problems with understanding what theyactually are doing in combination with their tendency ofworking individually and being somewhat ‘secretive’ withhow their spend their time at work.

Mainly they sit at their desktops and write code. . . They donot interact that much with each other under normalcircumstances. . . What they are working with is amongthe most complicated you can do as a software developer.Therefore it is extremely hard to comprehend and under-stand. It is actually!... Therefore I have to trust the peoplein my organization. What they tell me regarding timeplans and recommendations, for example.

The complex, solitary engineering work combined with ashared unwillingness of interference and to construct them-selves as ‘followers’ is of course a challenging environmentfor a manager eager to exercise leadership in relation to hissubordinates, in this case leaving him to arrange parties,serve breakfast and work with administration. By directingmanagement attention and focus on activities other thanleading subordinates, the intended followers thereby inhibitmanagerial leadership interventions targeted towards them-selves and their work.

Summary

The key themes/categories that emerge from this case (indi-cated by the chosen sub-headlines above) are (a) a generallylow demand for managerial leadership, and (b) managerialleadership inhibited/diverted by the subordinates/fol-lowers. To the subordinates, George’s efforts of doing leader-ship through developing them or directing their work, do notevoke much positive response. It is quite clear that they caremore about the work than about leadership and see manage-rial interventions as distractions. George is still seen inmoderately positive terms, though. As long as he doesn’tinterfere and cause problems, he is OK according to hissubordinates. As long as he doesn’t bother the engineersand developers too much, he may just as well continue.There is a shared understanding among the group members,constructing themselves as autonomous and disinterested inleadership. George on the other hand thinks that leadershipis important and wants to do more for his subordinates. Asthey are ‘deep technologically’ this is needed, he feels. Ofthe exact same reason, the subordinates are not very inter-ested and prefer to concentrate on their work and seemanagerial leadership efforts as something that should beminimized, since it is constructed as standing in opposition totrust, freedom and competence. The leader-wannabee insearch of followers meets those preferring some administra-tive support, celebration (arrangement of parties, breakfastsand beer tasting) and being addressed as professional engi-neers with as much autonomy as possible.

Synthesis and comparison of the two cases

As we just have seen, a few categories/themes of significantimportance for our research question emerge from the twocases; Limited demand for managerial leadership (Cases 1


and 2), Managerial leadership initiated by the followers(Case 1), and Managerial leadership influenced/inhibitedby the followers (Cases 1 and 2). We will now in turn discusseach one of them.


The two cases seem to share many characteristics. The twounits are both expected to develop innovative softwaresolutions. They consist of highly skilled engineers with longformal education. The organizational members claim to behighly committed to their work within their special area ofinterest and expertise. The types of task are also similar andconsist of qualified and complex technological problem sol-ving and envisioning of future trends/scenarios within eachtechnology area. In both cases (partly expected a priori givenour sample strategy), there seems to be plenty of means tosubstitute managerial leadership as a source for guidance andstimulation in these settings (Kerr & Jermier, 1978), and thesubordinates seem to be close to what Kelley (2008) wouldcall able and self-starting ‘star followers’ with less need for,or interest in, managerial direction and support (see alsoBennis, 2000). Trust and freedom from interference aredominant constructions of the manager—subordinate rela-tionships. Other roles of the manager than ‘leading’ fol-lowers, e.g. keeping track of administration, actingupwards as a spokesperson for the unit, deciding salary,funding parties, may be seen as important, but are somewhatdifferent from a leader/follower identification and relation-ship (DeRue & Ashford, 2010; Luhrmann & Eberl, 2007).

As put forward in the introduction section, if there is a lackof interest to be lead among the targets for the leadershipinterventions, there is a significant risk that the outcome ofthe intervention will be different than intended, e.g. fueldissatisfaction (Bligh, Kohles, Pearce, Justin, & Stovall,2007), trigger resistance (Collinson, 2005), or that the lea-dership efforts just will be ignored, i.e. non-acceptance of afollower identity (DeRue & Ashford, 2010). Especially thefocal manager in Case 1 seems to depart from his subordi-nates’ preferences, indicating a fairly high level of consensusbetween those involved regarding the limited need for man-agerial leadership. Both superiors and subordinates constructthe situation similarly and seem satisfied with the relation-ship, possibly reflecting an organizational cultural under-standing (rather than just a set of individual views) onleadership and how to organize support and direction (Alves-son, 2011b; Lord, Brown, Harvey, & Hall, 2001). Case 2indicates a somewhat less shared construction on the needfor managerial leadership, where the head of the unit seemsto want to ‘lead’ his engineers more than he currently does,while they do not really see the need for this and construct itas conflicting with employee competence, freedom andtrust. From a manager’s perspective (eager to do leadership),lack of leadership/followership could be seen as an expres-sion of shortcomings, possibly affecting self-conceptualiza-tion and identity (DeRue & Ashford, 2010; DeRue et al.,2009). From a subordinate’s perspective however, the sameabsence of leadership/followership can be viewed as a con-firmation of competence and trust.

DeRue and Ashford (2010, p. 628) emphasizes the impor-tance of ‘clarity’ when it comes to establishing leader—follower identities/relations: ‘When. . . clarity exists, there



+ Models



is greater acceptance of the right of the person constructedas leader to exert influence over the person constructed asfollower. When this clarity is missing, we expect increasedconflict and tension in the relationship’. In our empiricalstudies, it seems hard to explain the general lack of leader—follower identities with lack of clarity (many intervieweesindicate a rather elaborated and unambiguous view on therelationship across hierarchies). Instead, we think that thegeneral low demand for managerial leadership can bederived from their (rather clear) constructions of their work,their peers and their superiors. There is a tendency to seemanagement and leadership as the solution to any unsatisfy-ing situation (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2011). Managers maydo ‘too much’ or ‘too little’ (and of course also the wrongtype of) leadership, in relationship to subordinates’ experi-enced needs, interests, and identities as followers. Even if itis the ‘right’ or ‘positive’ kind of leadership — not toxic(Lipman-Blumen, 2004; Whicker, 1996) or aversive (Blighet al., 2007), but well intended as intellectually stimulating,considering, etc. — it may still be seen as too much and beperceived as ‘interference’.

Managerial leadership initiated by the followers

Particular salient in Case 1, the subordinates seem to have ashared understanding that managerial leadership should be‘by invitation’, i.e. that it is the junior person that initiatesthe senior person’s intervention. Rather than just laissez-faire, neglect or managerial abdication (usually condemnedmanagerial behaviour in most text on leadership), this couldinstead be understood as leadership ‘on call’, i.e. the super-ior manager is reactive but alert, responsive and ready tointervene, but only when called for by his/her subordinates.

Taken together with the low demand for managerialleadership in our two cases (above), this leader—followerrelationship could perhaps be understood as ‘self-leadership’(Lovelace et al., 2007) or some other ‘follower-less’ leader-ship approach such as ‘shared leadership’ (Pearce & Conger,2003; Pearce and Manz, 2005) or ‘distributed leadership’(Gronn, 2002). It also relates to what Carsten et al. (2010)refers to as ‘upward leadership’ (p. 558). In our study how-ever, the subordinates clearly open up for or invite theirformal superior to exercise (non-distributed/non-shared/downward) leadership, thereby accepting a temporal andpartly conditioned followership position and identity forthemselves (DeRue & Ashford, 2010). A leadership posi-tion/identity is therefore not just claimed and granted(DeRue & Ashford, 2010), but proactively ‘offered’ by thefollowers. This behaviour is in our view also different fromthe concept of ‘management-by-exception (passive)’, wherethe leader intervenes/takes action only if standards are notmet, rules have been broken or mistakes have been broughtto the leaders attention (Bass & Riggio, 2006). In contrast,our study shows followers with significant agency in the veryinitiation of the leadership process, and no ‘mistakes’ or ‘rulebreaking’ needs to precede it. The observed leader—followerrelationships also correspond somewhat with the notion of‘delegation’, but usually also delegation departs from themanager’s framing and construction of the situation (e.g.Blanchard, 2008). In our empirical cases we find this mis-leading; again, our results indicate that it is the followers —rather than their manager — that define the leadership


situation. Our results can therefore rather be related toCarsten et al’s. (2010) observation of ‘proactive’ followersand Shamir’s (2007) notion of followers as active ‘co-produ-cers‘, but the role of subordinates when it comes to triggermanagerial leadership in our study is worth highlighting andadds to the other two aforementioned studies.

Managerial leadership influenced/inhibited bythe followers

In both case studies, the subordinates generally constructthemselves as active co-producers of managerial leadershipoutcomes (e.g. strongly influencing managerial activities andexercising significant control over their own daily work/priorities) and also the absence thereof. This is a resultbroadly in line with what other scholars have written about(pro)active followers (Carsten et al., 2010; Hollander, 1992;Kelley, 1992; Meindl, 1995; Shamir, 2007). In the interviews,they also often come back to the idea that their managershould direct the attention outside the organizational unitand especially higher up in the hierarchy, in order to influ-ence top management and protect the unit from annoyingdecrees and ideas. By complying with these subordinatepreferences (especially salient in Case 1), the ability toinfluence and claim follower positions and identities forthe subordinates diminish. Previous research has showedhow subordinates use upward influence to obtain resources(Allen & Porter, 1983), but here the intention seems to be (atleast in addition to securing resources and influencing topmanagement) to divert attention in order to inhibitunwanted managerial leadership interventions.

As DeRue and Ashford (2010, p. 632) writes, claiming andgranting leader—follower identities can be done verbally aswell as non-verbally, direct or indirect. The same seems toapply for resisting such identities, thereby inhibiting man-agerial leadership. The example above illustrates how thesubordinates verbally, but indirectly inhibit leadershiptowards themselves by diverting or redirecting managerialattention to other ‘targets’. But also by just looking grumpy,bored or generally demonstrate a limited interest in manage-rial leadership acts, the subordinates can (as implied inparticular in Case 2) — verbally and non-verbally — moreor less directly inhibit managerial leadership initiatives,thereby acting as influential ‘co-authors’ (together with theirmanagers) of organizational realities (Cunliffe, 2001).

Discussion

A major finding in our study is that even managerial leader-ship may bear strong imprints of the constructions of sub-ordinates and is even often initiated (or inhibited) by the verytargets for leadership, i.e. the ‘followers’. This is to someextent in line with parts of the literature on active, self-leading followers, but in contrast, our study highlights thefollowers’ initiation of the managerial leadership process,and therefore adds a new angle. Inspired by our empiricalstudies and contemporary customer orchestrated media con-sumption (Video On Demand), we propose ‘Leadership OnDemand’ (managerial leadership practices in terms of direc-tion and/or support, initiated and to large extent defined byfollowers) as a useful metaphor for describing the leadership



+ Models



dynamics at hand. Here, the subordinates not only definewhat type of leadership they need in terms of quantity andquality, but also when (and even if) they need this manage-rial leadership intervention. Importantly, the metaphor cap-tures the experienced need and interest of those supposed tobenefit from the managerial leadership acts — the followers.The targets for leadership here rather explicitly ‘open up’ forbeing exposed to managerial leadership, followed by a poten-tial response from the manager/leader, usually passive interms of leadership interventions targeting subordinates, butready to act if asked for. ‘Followers’ then become drivers, oras the metaphor implies — selective or even fastidious con-sumers — of leadership. But they are also active as ‘editors’or inhibitors of leadership. When in various ways — via opendialogue or in more tacit manners, directly or indirectly —constructing themselves as non-followers and discouragingthe manager from a clear leader identity, it affects themanager and his/her agency as a ‘leader’.

To sum up, our results and findings highlight the vital roleof followers in the initiation phase of managerial leadership,thereby contributing to an ‘expanded view’ of leadership/followership-dynamics (Bligh, 2011; Carsten et al., 2010).The result also indicates how a general low demand formanagerial leadership affects — in particular limits — theability to claim and grant leader/followership identities(DeRue & Ashford, 2010). It is therefore also an exampleof how social constructionist studies can be social relevant toorganizational concerns (Grint & Jackson, 2010).

Limitations

There are of course important limitations with this study thatdeserve to be highlighted. Given our qualitative approachand small sample size (both in terms of cases and number ofinterviews) we cannot empirically generalize, as discussed inthe methods section above. In order to say something abouthow common or applicable our findings are, we need furtherstudies in more organizations and industries, but the fact thatboth cases show some common features suggests that thefindings have broader relevance.

Moreover, due to our focus on so-called knowledge intenseorganizations, some constructions may be more common(and anticipated) in these types of organizations comparedto others, due to characteristics such as highly educated co-workers, complex and highly specialized work tasks, claims ofintrinsic motivation linked to the work itself, etc. In a setting


with less formally qualified employees, more standardizedroutines, more significant gap in terms of knowledge/formaleducation between managers and subordinates, the resultmight have been somewhat different.

Finally, the findings are based on data from a Swedishsample. It is likely that constructions of leadership/follower-ship vary across cultures. Sweden is often being character-ized by its egalitarian society/work settings and low powerdistance between managers and subordinates, which ofcourse might be of great importance for our result. Datafrom a more autocratic setting with a more salient powerdistance might have given us a different result.

Taken together, these points at interesting avenues forfuture research including empirical studies in different orga-nizational/cultural settings than those that have beenincluded in this study. More studies on the actual real-timeinteraction between leaders and followers in the initiationphase of managerial leadership would also add importantknowledge in relation to our somewhat retrospective andinterview based study.

Concluding remarks

Even if participatory, coaching, delegating, supportive,shared, distributed and other post-heroic views of leadershipare popular, there is still an emphasis on leadership playing animportant role. It is therefore important to remember thatthere are many different ways of organizing work and provid-ing direction and support, some leadership/followership-based, others not. As demonstrated in our study, this doesnot necessarily mean that managers abdicate as leaders, butthat managerial leadership interventions are fairly rare, andto large extent initiated/inhibited by the ‘followers’ — anapproach we have labelled Leadership On Demand. In accor-dance with other writings on (pro)active followers, our studyshows how followers play a proactive role in ‘managing’leader—follower processes (Bligh, 2011; Carsten et al.,2010). Managers may, as leaders, be ‘authors of organiza-tional realities’ (Cunliffe, 2001), but there are co-authorsand readers, perhaps most importantly in the form of fol-lowers, who also can choose to act as ‘non-readers’ of theleader-authors’ reality constructing text efforts. Withouttheir interest the effect of the ‘manager-authoring’ is limitedand a collective authorship may make the lead-author appearless saliently when trying to understand who is holding thepen.



+ Models


Please cite this article in press as: Blom, M., & Alvesson, M. Leadership On Demand: Followers as initiators and inhibitors of managerialleadership. Scandinavian Journal of Management (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2013.10.006

Appendix A. Overview of the two field studies

Study 1 — EHT.

Interview Length (min) Electronicallyrecorded (yes/no)

No. of pagestranscribed

Julian A, Head of department (Platform Technology Planning) 55 No 8Julian A, Head of department (Platform Technology Planning) 95 Yes 14Julian A, Head of department (Platform Technology Planning) 35 No 4Suzie B, Corporate Head of Innovations 30 No 3Staffan L, Head of Section A 60 Yes 8Magnus S, Head of Section B 70 Yes 10Andrew M, Head of Technology Work Group 1 65 Yes 8Steven A, Head of Technology Work Group 2 55 Yes 7Andrew S, Head of Technology Work Group 3 50 Yes 10

The empirical study of EHT was conducted by one of the authors.Study 2 — Allied Tech.

Interview Length (min) Electronicallyrecorded (yes/no)

No. of pagestranscribed

George S, R&D Manager Product Platforms 90 Yes 16Giacomo G, Manager New Business Models 80 Yes 8Albert A, Co-worker New Business Models 25 Yes 2Barry B, Co-worker New Business Models 30 Yes 4Carrie C, Co-worker New Business Models 30 Yes 2Daniel D, Co-worker New Business Models 25 Yes 4Kurt K, Manager System and Services 75 Yes 5Eric E, Co-worker System and Services 35 Yes 3Freddy F, Co-worker System and Services 30 Yes 2Gertrud G, Co-worker System and Services 30 Yes 3Jasper A, Developer Product Platforms 25 Yes 2Hannah B, Developer Product Platforms 30 Yes 3Lenny C, Developer Product Platforms 30 Yes 2

The empirical study of Allied Tech was conducted by Dr. Johan Alvehus, a former member of the research group.

Appendix B. Interview schedule

Questions to superiors

1. Interviewee’s biography and background within and/or outside the organization (preferably answered before the actualinterview)?

2. Please describe the major tasks and responsibilities of your organization/team.

3. When do you think you are exercising ‘leadership’?

4. How do you exercise ‘leadership’?

5. When and how do you think your ‘leadership’ has a significant effect among your subordinates?

6. How would you, ideally, like to exercise ‘leadership’?

7. What kind of ‘leadership’ do you think your subordinates need in order to perform their tasks successfully?

8. What kind of ‘leadership’ do you think they prefer?

Questions to subordinates

1. Interviewee’s biography and background within and/or outside the organization (preferably answered before the actualinterview)?

2. Who (if any) is leading your work?

3. When do you feel someone is exercising ‘leadership’ on you and your work?

4. Describe how ‘leadership’ is exercised upon you and your work.

5. Describe ‘leadership’ that has been particular helpful or harmful in regards to your work.



+ Models


6. Describe the type of ‘leadership’ that you think you need in order to be able to perform your tasks as successfully aspossible.

7. How does this differ from the current situation?

8. Is ‘need’ the same as ‘prefer’ for you when it comes to ‘leadership’?

The interview schedule (intended questions) looked more or less the same for Studies 1 and 2. All interviews were conductedin Swedish. Hence, all questions above include translation from Swedish into English.


References

Allen, R. W., & Porter, L. W. (Eds.). (1983). Organizational influenceprocesses. Glenview: Scott Foresman.

Alvesson, M. (2004). Knowledge work and knowledge intensive firms.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Alvesson, M. (2011a). Interpreting interviews. London: Sage.Alvesson, M. (2011b). Leadership and organizational culture. In A.

Bryman, K. Grint, D. Collinson, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.),The Sage handbook of leadership. London: Sage.

Alvesson, M., & Skoldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: Newvistas for qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2011). Management is the solution;now what was the problem? On the fragile basis for manage-rialism. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 27(4), 349—361.

Baker, S. (2007). Followership: The theoretical foundations for acontemporary construct. Journal of Leadership and Organiza-tional Studies, 14(1), 50—60.

Barlebo Wenneberg, S. (2001). Socialkonstruktivism. Positioner,problem och perspektiv. Malmo: Liber.

Bass, B., & Riggio, R. (2006). Transformational leadership. NewJersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bass, B., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentictransformational leadership behavior. Leadership Quarterly,10(2), 181—217.

Bedeian, A. G., & Hunt, J. G. (2006). Academic amnesia and vestigialassumptions of our forefathers. Leadership Quarterly, 17(2),190—205.

Bennis, W. (2000). The end of leadership: Exemplary leadership isimpossible without full inclusion, initiatives, and cooperation offollowers. Organizational Dynamics, 28(1), 45—68.

Blanchard, K. (2008, May). Situational leadership: Adapt your style totheir development level. Leadership Excellence, 19.

Bligh, M. (2011). Followership and follower-centred approaches. InA. Bryman, K. Grint, D. Collinson, B. Jackson, & M. Uhl-Bien(Eds.), The Sage handbook of leadership. London: Sage.

Bligh, M., Kohles, J., Pearce, C., Justin, J., & Stovall, J. (2007). Whenromance is over: Follower perspectives of aversive leadership.Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56(4),528—557.

Bligh, M., & Schyns, B. (2007). The romance lives on: Contemporaryissues surrounding the romance of leadership. Leadership, 3(3),343—360.

Bresnen, M. (1995). All things to all people? Perceptions, attribu-tions, and constructions of leadership. Leadership Quarterly,6(4), 495—513.

Carroll, B., & Levy, L. (2008). Defaulting to management: Leadershipdefined by what it is not. Organization, 15(1), 75—96.

Carsten, M., Uhl-Bien, M., West, B., Patera, J., & McGregor, R.(2010). Exploring social constructions of followership: A qualita-tive study. Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 543—562.

Cogliser, C., Schriesheim, C., Scandura, T., & Gardner, W. (2009).Balance in leader and follower perceptions of leader-memberexchange: Relationships with performance and work attitudes.Leadership Quarterly, 20(3), 452—465.

Collinson, D. (2005). Dialectics of leadership. Human Relations,58(11), 1419—1442.


Collinson, D. (2006). Rethinking followership: A post-structural anal-ysis of follower identities. Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 179—189.

Cunliffe, A. (2001). Managers as practical authors: Reconstructingour understanding of management practice. Journal of Manage-ment Studies, 38(3), 351—371.

Cunliffe, A. (2008). Orientations to social constructionism: Relation-ally responsive social constructionism and its implications forknowledge and learning. Management Learning, 39(2), 123—139.

DeRue, S., & Ashford, S. (2010). Who will lead and who will follow? Asocial process of leadership identity constructions in organiza-tions. Academy of Management Review, 35(4), 627—647.

DeRue, S., Ashford, S., & Cotton, N. C. (2009). Assuming the mantle:Unpacking the process by which individuals internalize a leaderidentity. In J. R. Roherts & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positiveidentities and organizations: Building a theoretical and researchfoundation (pp. 213—232). New York: Francis & Taylor.

Dionne, S., Yammarino, F., Howell, J., & Villa, J. (2005). Substitutefor leadership, or not. Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), 169—193.

Fairhurst, G. (2007). Discursive leadership. Thousand Oakes: Sage.Fairhurst, G., & Grant, D. (2010). The social construction of leader-

ship: A sailing guide. Management Communication Quarterly,24(2), 171—210.

Gadamer, H.-G. (1989). Truth and method. London: Sheed & Ward.Gemmill, G., & Oakley, J. (1992). Leadership: An alienating social

myth? Human Relations, 45(2), 113—129.Gray, J. H., & Densten, I. L. (2007). How leaders woo followers in the

romance of leadership. Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, 56(4), 558—581.

Grint, K. (2000). The art of leadership. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Grint, K. (2005). Problems, problems, problems: The social construc-tion of ‘leadership’. Human Relations, 58(11), 1467—1494.

Grint, K., & Jackson, B. (2010). Towards ‘socially constructive’ socialconstructions of leadership. Management Communication Quar-terly, 24(2), 148—155.

Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Lead-ership Quarterly, 13(4), 423—451.

Gubrium, J., & Holstein, J. (1997). The new language of qualitativemethod. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1977). Management of organizationalbehavior: Utilizing human resources (3rd ed.). New Jersey:Prentice Hall.

Hollander, E. (1992). Leadership, followership, self, and others.Leadership Quarterly, 3(1), 43—54.

Holmberg, I., & Tyrstrup, M. (2010). Well then — What now? Aneveryday approach to managerial leadership. Leadership, 6,353—372.

Howell, J., & Shamir, B. (2005). The role of followers in the charis-matic leadership process: Relationships and their consequences.Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 96—112.

Jermier, J., & Kerr, S. (1997). Substitutes for leadership: Theirmeaning and measurement — Contextual recollections and cur-rent observations. Leadership Quarterly, 8(2), 95—100.

Kellerman, B. (2008). Followership: How followers are creatingchange and changing leaders. Cambridge: Harvard BusinessSchool Press.

Kelley, R. (1992). The power of followership. New York: Doubleday.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0956-5221(13)00117-6/sbref0005

















































































































+ Models



Kelley, R. (2008). Rethinking followership. In R. Riggio, I. Chaleff, &J. Lipman-Blumen (Eds.), The art of followership: How greatfollowers create great leaders and organizations. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Kelly, S. (2008). Leadership: A categorical mistake? Human Relations,61(6), 763—782.

Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Theirmeaning and measurement. Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, 22, 375—403.

Kotter, J. (1985). Power and influence: Beyond formal authority.New York: Free Press.

Ladkin, D. (2010). Rethinking leadership: A new look at old leader-ship questions. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Lindgren, M., & Packendorff, J. (2011). Issues, responsibilities andidentities: A distributed leadership perspective on biotechnologyR&D management. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(3),157—169.

Lipman-Blumen, J. (2004). The allure of toxic leaders: Why wefollow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians — And howwe can survive them. New York: Oxford University Press.

Lord, R. G., Brown, D. J., Harvey, J. L., & Hall, R. J. (2001).Contextual constraints on prototype generation and their multi-level consequences for leadership perceptions. Leadership Quar-terly, 12(3), 311—338.

Lovelace, K. J., Manz, C., & Alves, J. C. (2007). Work stress andleadership development: The role of self-leadership, sharedleadership, physical fitness and flow in managing demands andincreasing job control. Human Resource Management Review,17(4), 374—387.

Luhrmann, T., & Eberl, P. (2007). Leadership and identity construc-tion: Reframing the leader—follower interaction from an identitytheory perspective. Leadership, 3(1), 115—127.

Lundholm, S. (2011). Meta-managing: A study on how superiors andsubordinates manage their relationship in everyday work. Lund:Lund Business Press.

Marcel, V. (2001). The constructivist debate: Bringing hermeneutics(properly). Paper presented at the ISA conference.

Meindl, J. (1995). The romance of leadership as a follower-centrictheory: A social constructionist approach. Leadership Quarterly,6(3), 329—341.

Mumford, M., Scott, G., Gaddis, B., & Strange, J. (2002). Leadingcreative people: Orchestrating expertise and relationships. Lead-ership Quarterly, 13(6), 705—750.

Ospina, S., & Sorenson, G. (2006). A constructionist lens on leader-ship: Charting new territory. In G. Goethals & G. Sorenson (Eds.),The quest for a general theory of leadership. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar.

Pearce, C., & Conger, J. (Eds.). (2003). Shared leadership. ThousandOakes: Sage.

Pearce, C., & Manz, C. (2005). The new silver bullets of leadership:The importance of self- and shared leadership in knowledge work.Organizational Dynamics, 34(2), 130—140.


Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., & Bommer, W. (1996). Transformationalleader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinantsof employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizationalcitizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 22(2), 259—298.

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology.London: Sage.

Reiter-Palmon, R., & Illies, J. (2004). Leadership and creativity:Understanding leadership from a creative problem-solving per-spective. Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 55—77.

Rennstam, J. (2007). Engineering work — On peer reviewing as amethod of horizontal control. Lund: Lund Business Press.

Riggio, R., Chaleff, I., & Lipman-Blumen, J. (Eds.). (2008). The art offollowership: How great followers create great leaders andorganizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ropo, A., & Parviainen, J. (2001). Leadership and bodily knowledge inexpert organizations: Epistemological rethinking. ScandinavianJournal of Management, 17(1), 1—18.

Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2011). Routes to research questions:Beyond gap-spotting. Organization, 18, 22—44.

Shamir, B. (2007). Introduction: From passive recipients to active co-producers — The roles of followers in the leadership process. In B.Shamir, R. Pillai, M. Bligh, & M. Uhl-Bien (Eds.), Follower-cen-tered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to the memory ofJames R. Meindl. Stamford: Information Age Publishing.

Shamir, B., Pillai, R., Bligh, M., & Uhl-Bien, M. (Eds.). (2007).Follower-centered perspectives on leadership: A tribute to thememory of James R. Meindl. Stamford: Information Age Publish-ing.

Smircich, L., & Morgan, G. (1982). Leadership: The management ofmeaning. Journal of Behavioral Science, 18, 257—273.

Stake, R. (2000). Case studies. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.),Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Steier, F. (Ed.). (1991). Research and reflexivity. London: Sage.Tengblad, S. (2003). Den myndige medarbetaren. Malmo: Liber.Thorpe, R., Gold, J., & Lawler, J. (2011). Locating distributed

leadership. International Journal of Management Reviews,13(3), 239—250.

Trevelyan, R. (2001). The paradox of autonomy: A case of academicresearch scientist. Human Relations, 54(4), 495—525.

Vine, B., Holmes, J., Marra, M., Pfeifer, D., & Jackson, B. (2008).Exploring co-leadership talk through interactional sociolinguis-tics. Leadership, 4(3), 339—360.

Von Nordenflycht, A. (2010). What is a professional service firm?Towards a theory and taxonomy of knowledge intensive firms.Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 155—174.

Whicker, M. L. (1996). Toxic leaders: When organizations go bad.Westport: Quorum Books.

Yukl, G. (1989). Managerial leadership: A review of theory andresearch. Journal of Management, 15(2), 251—289.

Zaleznik, A. (1977, May—June). Managers and leaders: Are theydifferent? Harvard Business Review, 55, 67—78.







































































































Documents

Leadership On Demand: Followers as initiators and